Article I outlined a list of obstructive behaviors Nixon engaged in the lead up to and during the Watergate scandal. They read like a list of indictable offenses with the exception of an abuse of power in seeking the CIA’s efforts to interfere with the FBI.

Article III charged Nixon with contempt after he refused to cooperate with Congress’s investigation into Watergate.

The third article has drawn the most reconsideration in the last 24-48 hours after Trump announced “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” saying the administration would not comply with House committees’ requests for witnesses and documents.

While Trump hasn’t an unauthorized bombing of Cambodia under his belt addressed by the fourth article in 1974, he does have ongoing violations of international treaties for which he should answer, and for which the Republicans in Congress should be held accountable by a vote on an article about crimes against humanity.

We don’t yet know if a fifth article related to taxes may yet be needed but we shouldn’t be surprised if the tax returns Trump is so desperate to hide do not provide grounds for one.

What a lot of familiar rhyming. One might wonder what Articles of impeachment would look like against Trump. Let’s take a look at a possible Article I.

~ ~ ~

Article 1

RESOLVED, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

Beginning March 2016, and prior thereto, agents of Russia knowingly accessed computers without authorization belonging to or used by U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and volunteers (“Clinton Campaign”), of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”), and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence.

In April 2016, Conspirators including agents of Russia and persons know and unknown to a Grand Jury began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.

Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released stolen materials. The Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around November 2016 with the intent to support the campaign of Donald J. Trump and deter the Clinton Campaign.

Subsequent thereto, Donald J. Trump, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unauthorized access and use of stolen materials; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Special Counsel, and Congressional Committees;
5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals;
6. endeavoring to misuse the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Office of White House Counsel of the United States;
7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;**
8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Presidential Campaign and on the part of the personnel of the executive branch of the United States, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

_________

** Did Trump share/receive material through the Joint Defense Agreement not for the purposes of defense but to obstruct the Special Counsel’s investigation?

~ ~ ~

Well now…the potential parallels are quite striking. Because there’s so much to ponder in this one possible Article, I’ll leave evaluation of other possible Articles to another post to follow.

What do you think? Is there more which an Article focused on obstruction might include? Is there wording which needs revision based on what we now know?

My comments regarding Trump trying to quash subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One citing The Right to Financial Privacy Act:

RFPA:

It is important to note that under the RFPA covered customers are individuals or partnerships of 5 or fewer individuals. Corporations, trusts, estates, unincorporated associations such as unions, and large partnerships are not covered by the RFPA. Therefore, the availability of RFPA protection depends on the type of person or entity whose records are sought.

The RFPA does not apply to a request for orders for information by state and local government entities. While, the Act does not contain explicit provisions regarding its effect on state law, the legislative history of the RFPA indicates that Congress intended to regulate access to customer records by federal agencies and departments only, without precluding states from regulating access of state and local agencies to such records.

United States v. Wilson, 571 F. Supp. 1417 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

The RFPA grants bank customers a limited right to challenge subpoenas served by federal officials on banks and other financial institutions.[5] If a customer is properly notified of the subpoena, as was the case here, the subpoena must be upheld if it complies with three requirements. First, the subpoena must “reasonably describe[]” the financial records to be produced.[6] Second, the subpoena must be “authorized by law.”[7] Third, there must be “reason to believe that the records sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry.”[8]

[email protected] on the Trump suing banks so they won’t turn over his financial records to Congress:
“The president is not a private citizen. He has become a public figure by choosing to run for office… with that comes disclosure of things that would otherwise be private.” [VIDEO]

Excellent comment REG. And you are right, it is about delay. Can’t believe a lower court like SDNY or is going to bite on this. But, potentially, four conservatives on SCOTUS might. Which, if so, would leave it up to Roberts. And that is just on the stay, not the merits.

Thanks for doing the hard work of getting this started, Rep. Rayne (D-EW).

I can’t think of the right wording right now, but am feeling it needs to include a couple words denoting IRA influence ops, since the investigation of that was also thwarted by his obstruction of the whole probe. But I get why you focused where you did, on the crimes that you did. I gotta think about this.

Thanks. I need to shoehorn in a paragraph explaining the hush money arrangement with Cohen for Stormy Daniels or Item 5 doesn’t fit.

I hear you about the IRA influence ops but this article need to focus less on the damage they did and more on Trump’s obstruction especially since his relationship and actions were closer to the ‘persons known and unknown’ and not the IRA. I pulled pieces from the IRA indictment to write the description of what happened and when wrt Russian interference so I feel fairly confident the streamlined explanation works.

I want to point out here for other readers who are still up in the air about collusion/conspiracy/coordination that the ‘speaking’ indictment of the Russian IRA team tells us the Special Counsel’s Office referred to ‘Conspirators’ including ‘persons know and unknown to the Grand Jury’.
(Indictment pdf: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/download)

Gotcha. Also (cued by mention of conspiracy), I think the airing of the conspiracy part pre-oath/ potentially up to inaugural is part of the hold up with dems moving to impeachment (especially as it _may_ implicate some post-oath stuff). It’s been my general impression that they want to get the full MR/CI/evidence and litigate some ‘quality control’ issues (e.g. Barr) first. For a few reasons, the Mueller investigation materials (provide) transit through a liminal space to clearer focus on his other actions while in office.

This is just the read I’m getting; nobody hate on the messenger. My question is what they’ll do when Barr withholds on them next week.

I wish this was sure to affect my district which is one of the largest by area and represented by a guy as dumb as a fence post. But the districts which need to be rejiggered are in the Detroit Metro area.

This was seriously posted under the heading “Science,” “Alligators.” If they kept the kids from take-your-kid-to-work-day around, they could probably come up with better content. Also, the kids would have properly put the alligator story under “Sports” with Tiger.

If that doesn’t persuade the Senate (the current one or the next), all 50 states (plus territories) can secede and go form a more perfect union, right? Or, for 2020’s ballots, the states can list “Individual No. 1” instead of Trump’s name.

Thread by “Pat Toomey is troubled by [HOM]”: “Amid this mind-numbing rehash of #charlottesville, may I remind everyone that @SenBobCasey has a bill to study online proliferation of hate & radicalization. It’s sitting in committee & has no GOP cosponsors yet. #StopHATEAct (links to Senate Bill 917)”
[https://twitter.com/ToomeyMemes/status/1121825849018335233]

“While it’s generally pooh-poohed to contact legislators not your own, you absolutely may contact them in their role as Committee leadership. In this case @SenatorWicker is Chair of Commerce, Science, & Transportation Cte; @SenatorCantwell is ranking minority member. #StopHATEAct”

“Also, if you have a Senator on it, tell them you want the #StopHATEAct passed out of committee. They are: @SenJohnThune @RoyBlunt @SenTedCruz @SenatorFischer @JerryMoran @SenDanSullivan @SenCoryGardner @SenCapito @MarshaBlackburn @SenMikeLee @SenRonJohnson (links to list on Commerce)”

(sigh) Given what’s known* about the “domestic terrorist” who attacked the Poway synagogue, there may be more interest in this bill introduced to Senate (917), and its identical counterpart in the House (HR 1934), so here is more info on the “Stop Harmful and Abusive Telecommunications Expression Act of 2019” or the “Stop HATE Act of 2019.”

The legislation would require periodic reports (first one to occur within one year of enactment; else no longer than five years thereafter– which is probably too long a gap in this era), by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information with AG assistance, about the roles of various forms of media (“telecommunications”) in hate crimes. In other words, it might document radicalization inter-weavings from Fox to gab.

To be clear, I’m not sure of the ultimate utility of this leg., either absent or actually enforcing related hate-crimes stuff we have on the books, or compared to what public interest research and reporting groups can produce. Just sharing/airing:

(b) Scope of reports.—A report required by subsection (a) shall—

(1) analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, computer bulletin boards, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate, as described in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (34 U.S.C. 41305), against individuals or groups of individuals on the basis of race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, color, or national origin;

(2) include in the analysis required by paragraph (1) an analysis of—

(A) the role that such telecommunications are playing in giving groups that advocate and encourage such violent acts and the commission of such crimes of hate a platform to spread their messages and to organize across the United States; and

(B) how such use and role of telecommunications have changed due to the evolution of new forms of communication on the internet and other electronic media since the submission of the previous report under subsection (a) (or, in the case of the first report submitted under such subsection, the report submitted under section 155 of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act); and

(3) include any recommendations, consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, that the Assistant Secretary considers appropriate and necessary to address such use and such role of telecommunications.

Max Kennerly: “Now where could the shooter have gotten a crazy idea like that?(quote tweets Josh Marshall, next) ”
[https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1122279311988461568]

Josh Marshall (10-27-18): “Straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Just moments ago, Lou Dobbs guest Chris Farrell (head of Judicial Watch) says Caravan is being funded/directed by the “Soros-occupied State Department” (10-27-18 tweet of embedded Fox video clip)”
[https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1056324117329297409]

Further discussion of the GOP’s ‘women-evil’ strategy addressed here periodically, this time as seen through 2020-related abortion rhetoric. To state the obvious, political abortion talk is generally about more than abortion per se, and often about controlling the populace by controlling women.

Ai-jen Poo: “Important piece by @ilyseh on a new line of attack on the humanity of women. “It is a new breed of misogyny…reinforcing the idea that many, if not most, women are villainous monsters, deserving of hatred at worst & needing to be controlled at best. (links to Rewire article below)”
[https://twitter.com/aijenpoo/status/1121766167646035969]

Hogue opens by noting that dems on the campaign trail are being asked about abortion “up until the moment of birth,” with that direct quote applying to a Q Fox asked Bernie at his recent Fox Town Hall. She then gives a mini-course in GOP tactics:

These types of questions about abortion are designed to be traps. No woman sets out to carry a pregnancy only to terminate it moments before birth. The premise of these types of questions is flawed and not based in science, medicine, or reality. Yet there’s an intentional effort to conflate the incredibly difficult and complex reality around abortion later in pregnancy—most often defined as after 20 weeks of pregnancy—with incendiary and fantastical charges of murder of a newborn. There’s no good way to answer this question without affirming the lie at the center of it, which is precisely the point.

But here’s the hard truth we all must face to effectively combat this strategy: The effectiveness of this disinformation depends almost entirely on a belief that women are at best irresponsible and untrustworthy and at worst somehow corrupt or sinful. Without that unfortunately familiar trope, how else could we actually believe that there are hordes of monstrous women out there waiting until the last possible moment to terminate their pregnancy? These charged exchanges and baited questions about abortion aimed at Democrats illustrate a scary reality: that Republicans’ 2020 strategy is reliant on a deeply-rooted belief that women are inferior.

The “why” is obvious. While they are trying to distract with such fictional charges, they are also working assiduously to criminalize abortion across the country at their own political peril. Polls consistently show that the agenda they pursue is politically unpopular, with 7 in 10 Americans supporting access to safe, legal abortion. Republicans know this, which is exactly why they must resort to misleading and backhanded tactics predicated on lies and hypothetical scenarios in order to try to move the needle and obscure their true aims.

(Internal links removed)

Hogue continues by summarizing the spate of state legislation attempts to render women perpetrators and criminalize very early termination, then rests these issues in the broader context of women’s rights.

Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….
….This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.

Introduced in Senate (01/31/2019) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
Official Title-Senate: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

CRS writes the summaries…and this one is something to behold. [see link above]

[…] The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.
A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. […]

Let me be clear: infanticide is already illegal. This bill continues Republicans’ ceaseless efforts to push a false narrative to achieve their goals of shaming women, criminalizing doctors, and ending a woman’s right to a safe, legal abortion.

This is what happens when you’re of orange-health status and you get to know people from hate-watching chirons instead of IRL. All the IOO/OIOs flow together. Figures, given his legendary overspending, that he’d be buying vowels.

Thank you, harpie, for documenting-out this thread (I felt remiss not mentioning this stuff) and also your next one. And I love your editorializing inserts throughout ;)

Trump on @maziehirono: “The crazy female senator from the state of Ohio… the state of Hawaii, right? She’s like a crazed person. What she said about men is so bad. But she’s standing in the hallway & she didn’t know too much about the plan, b/c she can’t understand that plan.”

[…] Democrats are harassing the President to distract from their radical agenda of making America a socialist county, killing babies after they are born, and pushing a ‘green new deal’ that would destroy jobs and bankrupt America. […]

Trump falsely claims Democrats support murdering babies.
“The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”
The crowd respond w/angry boos

NO ONE ever, in any hospital, nor any mother who has just given birth, is conspiring with a doctor on whether or not to commit infanticide. This is perhaps one of the sickest accusations levied by this deranged dictator yet. Don’t believe a word he says about anything important//
Julie Pulver, RN

Pulver, a West Bloomfield mother of four, founded the group Women Organize Michigan after the 2016 election. She was defeated by now-state Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) in a close 2018 election in the 15th District. […] Pulver said she has been considering another bid for office, but hasn’t made a final decision.

who ever thought the name of that bill up must be some sort of nut job or drama queen/king, really. this passes for proposed legislation in the Congress of the United States of American?

Are these people even part of this century or the last? You’d think they might be a little more concerned about the living, like seniors without proper housing, families without proper resources, or Gold Star families who are being taxed at higher rates than before.

You do sit and wonder how these people even thing this type of stuff up. And they were elected to more than class clown??

The majority of the world’s politicians at one time or another “stretch” the truth, but these types of weird outrageous lies Trump tells, like killing a baby after birth in hospitals? Not only is he crazy for saying it, but you do have to wonder about the intelligence of those believing it. If that were truly happening, there would be police forces all over the country, in hospitals, charging doctors and others. Too bad some one hasn’t asked trump what evidence he is basing his statements on.

Abortion has been legal in Canada since 1969. There are generations of people who have known nothing else. Even politicians who do not support abortion because of religious reasons are clear, they aren’t going to try to change any of the laws in Canada regarding abortion. Perhaps what made it easier in Canada, was abortion was legalized on a national level.

Its a matter of Choice.

One of the things which leaves me shaking my head, is its O.K. to have “stand your ground” laws and kill people but people object to a female deciding what to do with her own body.

One way to respond might be to ask, “Who have you prosecuted for murdering a baby at birth?” When they answer “no one” You can ask “you mean you are letting people get away with murder?” That would shame you or I. Our problem is that they are incapable of shame.

“A president cannot defend a nation if he is not held accountable to its laws.”
And
“Failing to indict a criminal sitting president sends the message that those in power are above the law.”
― DaShanne Stokes

I look forward to the day when America STARTS sending a different message than the one that says “Presidents are not above the law”–well, particularly Republican presidents. I mean the crimes that Nixon, Bush Sr. and Jr. Reagan, and now this one have gotten away with is insane for a country that says “no man is above the law”. Really? Oh, except ANY white man at the top of whatever pyramid he happens to be sitting on, that’s all!

Whatever happens at the end of this recent ‘rinse and repeat’ Republican Crime Family Fest if anyone says “we need to ‘look forward and not backward’, etc.” I’m going to light myself on fire in a crowded intersection!!!! Jesus!

A minor point perhaps, but in ARTICLE 1 second paragraph above, shouldn’t it read “Russian Federation” instead of just “Russia”? And I tend to agree that the longer the House Democrats take to get their waterfowl in a linear formation before beginning formal impeachment proceedings, the more the present situation will become solidified in the public’s mind as ‘the new normal’; i.e., the President’s recent claim to have been the victim of an attempted coup and an attempt to overthrow the government. If you’re going to let the Executive get away with stonewalling the Congress with impunity, then you might as well ask for the return of the House of Hanover (but they’ll probably smell pretty bad.)

I apologize for all this, Rayne, but I’ve been chomping at the bit for an open thread since the other day, when Marcy retweeted the following thread, and it really hit home. [I’m excerpting, but really read the whole thing.]:https://twitter.com/sivavaid/status/1120704283266179072
8:01 AM – 23 Apr 2019

THREAD: The reticence of so many Dems to support any of the talented, experienced, ELECTED women this year reminds me of a meeting my students had with a top network executive a few years back, after NBC tapped Fallon and Meyers for the late-night gigs. […] They wanted to know if any of the networks had auditioned or interviewed any of the hundreds of successful women who are active in standup, improv, or TV writing for late-night hosting gigs that had come open that year. […]
My students were not interested in his sincerity. They wanted numbers and names. They wanted evidence. I was so proud of them.
Finally, after much frustration, the executive blurted out,
“WELL WE TRIED JOAN RIVERS AND THAT DIDN’T WORK!” […]
So “WE TRIED JOAN RIVERS AND THAT DIDN’T WORK!” reveals three things:
First, a guy who should know that Carson ensured that Rivers would fail did not acknowledge that a man’s fragile ego sabotaged Rivers.
It also reveals the fact that he saw one woman as representing all women.
And that TV and America in 1986 somehow resembled TV and America in 2014.
So when I hear Democrats unwilling to support any of these women, often citing “electability” (as if any of us understand the first thing about electability), I hear “WELL WE TRIED HILLARY CLINTON AND THAT DIDN’T WORK OUT.”As Joan Rivers would say, “Let’s talk …”

NEW story: Trump’s Fed pick Stephen Moore wrote four separate times women shouldn’t be allowed to announce men’s basketball games.

VOX, continued:

In her telling, misogyny isn’t about hatred; it’s about protecting an existing social order, and it often works quietly, subtly. It’s why a woman boss is quicker to be judged cruel than a male boss; it’s why a woman running for a leadership position can be ruled out for offenses that would never be noticed if a man committed them. […]
“Electability isn’t a static social fact; it’s a social fact we’re constructing,” she told me. And “my worry is electability is a smokescreen for this sadly common thing, which is not wanting to support a female candidate.” […]

Try to imagine men’s reactions, if it was known for a fact the next 45 presidents would be women, and after those 240 years, a man running was considered “identity politics.” […]
Try to imagine men’s reactions, were it known that of the next 113 SCOTUS justices, only 4 would be men, and none of those w/b appointed before 2205, and even then women’s complaints about male appointees would be “why don’t they just appoint the person best qualified?” […]
What if we men knew there wouldn’t be a male candidate for the presidency for 240 years, and even then he’d lose to the 2260 version of Roseanne Barr, who’d been taped bragging about assaulting men during the campaign—but the media talked about what a scary time it was for women?
What if men needed a wife to own property for the next century or so.
Or to open a bank account?
And divorce is illegal.
But no fear, 100 yrs after that there’ll be a Constitutional Amendment declaring men are full people.
It’ll fail. But still—We’ve come a long way, baby!

AFAIK divorce has not been illegal in the US as a whole at any time. Some states made it very difficult to get one – but I’ve seen people getting divorces before 1920. Most of the problems are with churches that refuse to recognize them, and those are usually blamed on the woman, even if the man was doing all the misbehavior.

The joys of doing genealogy…. (I ran into one family where, when the wife left, they had a funeral, complete with cemetery marker – a Catholic cemetery – but I found a couple of the kids living with her in the next census. It makes me wonder how they managed the funeral. Closed casket, and a log for weight?)

My impression of your thought experiment is that it was terrific. The span of years in your examples forces the point and cannot be argued. Each one made me stop…and think. Well done.
As for your conversation with “some guy”, he is marching with the army that can’t tolerate AOC and doesn’t know (or won’t admit) why. What they say to each other must be far worse than what they muster up to say in public. I catch astonishing little glimpses from time to time from people I thought I knew. You must really have pissed him off to tease him out.
Again, well done.

I suspect it’s like the comments on news stories about measles, where you get one or two intelligent comments, and a larger number by people whose reading comprehension and numeracy are limited at best.)

His orders to ICE staff to ignore judges orders, and continue the practice, is contempt for the law and justice (article component or another article entirely). Its been a long and downward road for U.S. law and ethics in the torture area, and will end in fascism if not curtailed. Women now another target, but the rest of us may soon follow.

When I referred in the post to a fourth article addressing “ongoing violations of international treaties” and “crimes against humanity” it was Trump’s unlawful zero tolerance policy and its equally unlawful enforcement I was thinking of. Still debating whether the unlawful Muslim travel ban including detentions and deportations related to its enforcement also fall under this article — a little reading required or feedback from others necessary to determine if the ban infringed on human rights under a treaty by curtailing free movement based on religious criteria.

I’m reminded of an article I read recently, don’t recall where, they talked about the Republican’s long-standing habit of crying that Dems are “criminalizing policy differences” every time they blatantly violate some law or other and get called out on it! And how indicative of the Republican’s propensity toward PROJECTION is that!?

So be prepared to listen for that little jewel as we proceed into naming the Trump Crime Family sins, “Criminalizing Policy Differences” wait for it…

TRUMP threatens to close border with Mexico as soon as this weekend, then rants about immigration during Oval Office meeting with NATO secretary general: “What we have to do is Congress has to meet quickly & make a deal… to be honest with you, we have to get rid of judges.” [VIDEO]

Pentagon prepares to expand military’s role at border by loosening rules prohibiting troops from interacting with migrants […] Senior Defense Department officials have recommended that acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan approve a new request from the Department of Homeland Security to provide military lawyers, cooks and drivers to assist with handling a surge of migrants along the southern border. […]

Yeah, and Trump-inspired racist, armed militia are patrolling my state’s border with Mexico and detaining immigrants (even today). Seems CPBP are ‘colluding’ (-;) with them to make apprehension. The leader was recently arrested by FBI for felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Trumps base, these militias form the para-military that will always be willing to do as ordered, lawful or not, as ‘patriots.’ Ordering military to the border does not make his policies more legit, just another high crime and misdemeanor.

According to the October 31, 2018 issue of Military Times, U.S. Army and National Guard units deployed to the southern border were concerned about the presence of these citizen militia groups as they have a history of stealing weapons & ammo from regular Army and National Guard forces.

You would think so, wouldn’t you, but the story in Military Times and a few other websites only referred to incidents of theft and “pilfering” without going into details. The story also spoke of the army authorities warning Texas landowners not to be surprised if they find these militia groups wandering over their property.

how come white people roving as armed groups are called militia and when its people of colour roving around while armed, they’re called criminal gangs. Sometimes both groups are doing illegal things.

if I were in a government military group, doing my job, and ran into these armed white gangs, I’d be concerned we might get shot.

How silly is that, patrolling the border. they aren’t police, they aren’t a branch of the government. If they wanted to do something for society, they could go work at a food bank or work with Habitat for Humanity, etc. Walking around with a gun in your hand hardly seems like contributing to society.

His orders to ICE staff to ignore judges orders, and continue the practice, is contempt for the law and justice ….

Yes, that was the one I wanted to point out. Specifically telling government employees to break the law, don’t worry I will pardon you, is the ultimate conptempt for the rule of law. And the fact that it was to promote a policy that violated human rights, doubles the contempt.

wouldn’t that come under obstruction of the law? the man is clearly an idiot, telling federal government workers to break the law. Governments have non political government workers so governments can function in a more non partisan manner.

And while Congress hasn’t actually jailed anyone going back to 1935, hopefully the oversight Committees will be issuing Contempt of Congress resolutions at a healthy rate in the months to come as Administration officials choose to ignore requests for testimony, documents, etc. A majority vote of just one chamber is sufficient to pass a contempt resolution. And that’s where it gets interesting:

“Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Seargent-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate…” Fines, probation, etc., are not uncommon, but the public humiliation, for starters, works for me.

OT: just heard that Oliver North resigned from the NRA presidency. How about Harry Whittington for NRA pres? After all, he knows both ends of the barrel.
ps sorry Rayne for the cap on the “p” doing this on my phone.

I’m getting quite frustrated with the press for not educating the public on the difference between a Standard House Investigation and a Formal Impeachment Investigation. They have no problem reporting on Trumps many delays and his voiced plan to stonewall every subpoena, but there’s nothing on how to stop that behavior.

This article in Politico is the closest I’ve seen (outside of blogs and websites run by lawyers) to someone mentioning it. They spend several paragraphs leading up to the issue, and then swerve around it at the last second.

“And some also say that legal precedents suggest the House could bolster its claim to testimony from McGahn and others by formally opening an impeachment inquiry, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been reluctant to do.”

That’s it. From there it turns back into a history lesson. Opportunity missed. I’m about ready to just go into a self-induced media blackout until I hear that Pelosi has finally pulled the trigger. Nothing of any substance is going to happen until she does.

“Prosecutors working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded last year that they had sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice… Privately, the two prosecutors, who were then employed in the special counsel’s office, told other Justice Department officials that had it not been for the unique nature of the case… they would have advocated that he face federal criminal charges.”

My personal first response is that those of us who were paying attention and reading carefully had pretty much figured this already, but it’s good to see it said more explicitly. The third-hand, anonymous nature of the claim is frustrating, because of course that’s going to be used to dismiss it by Trump defenders. I don’t suppose we can expect that Mueller would confirm this when called in for questioning by the House – doesn’t seem like his style, or maybe even his ethics.

With the caveat IADefinitelyNAL…I think the twenty plus references to Congress’ powers of Impeachment in the report, together with explicit statements like “…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” reflect Mueller’s view that there was indeed sufficient evidence – were it not for the “unique nature” of the case – to pursue tRump on obstruction charges.

The fact that Mueller also referenced the need to “preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,’ indicates that prosecution on obstruction charges against tRump and/or associates, after his term expires, was a consideration.

The report’s Executive Summary of Volume II (obstruction of justice) goes into painful detail concerning DOJ prosecution/declination issues – the OLC opinion that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” or “…no adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing,” etc. Mueller played it straight up and by the (DOJ) book. My guess is that he’d be confident with “my report speaks for itself…” in public testimony.

As to tRump defenders (and confused independents, alike), they would be well-served listening to what Faux News’ (for now, at least) Judge Napolitano had to say about the case for obstruction, as presented in Mueller’s report:

Sure, that’s what those around these parts figured out, but like I said, you have to read carefully to see that, which is what too many reporters and pundits won’t do, let alone ordinary voters. But I’m wondering if, asked point blank by a Democratic House member (as he surely will be), Mueller would state right out, “I would have indicted anyone else but the president for actions like this, but I didn’t because of the DOJ guidance.” Somehow I think he wouldn’t, because if he were comfortable doing so, he would have done so in the report. But, IANALOMR (“… Or Mind Reader”).

The best quote on the Mueller report was on Harry Shearer’s fine radio show opener last week when he said that Mueller could’ve saved us two years if he’d told us up front he wasn’t going to prosecute based on that DOJ memo:

What he is saying is that dems cannot impeach Trump yet because that would give Trump too much publicity, basically playing in Trump narrative, and the result is known to fail in Senate.
Trump should be impeached, even if he may not be convicted, but I agree that it matters the way is done. I am with bmaz that the clock is running out. Also, we really don’t know for sure if the impeachment will fail.

Now I see why Mueller wanted to rush to complete the investigation, to allow congress to act.
Just hoping there are some people left in the US government that will do what’s right.

Well, since this is an open thread, just to get some relief and lighten up I checked out a nice piece on BF re: author-owned book stores. I love indie bookstores. A beauty is City Lights in SF co-founded by Lawrence Ferlinghetti. His “belief in the surreality and wonder of life” is so bloody apropos right now.

It’s hard to believe we’re here, but we are. We have to fight to keep what little pure freedom and privacy we have left. We have to impeach the bastard.

Relief…yeah, I can relate. Interesting that you note Ferlinghetti’s “belief in the surreality and wonder of life” – a favorite escape of mine is to the world of uber-realist/fantasy painter Arantzazu Martinez, something like “Absolute Trust.”

Lawrence’s 100th Birthday was just last month on March 24th. It was quite the literary event in The City . Accolades from all over the world for him.

He is among the last of the original beatniks. So much of what made The City unique and weird and wonderful is disappearing under the stampede of tech people. I am glad that a trust has been set up to preserve City Lights.

on the guy who ran into the pedestrians in Sunnyvale: see coverage at SFGate, because it’s (approximately) in their area. (It’s about 45 miles south of S.F.) One of the pedestrians is in a coma because of head injuries.
(They also have some coverage of a synagogue shooting in Poway, from this morning. The shooter is in custody; four injured, one of whom may have died.)

“And yesterday the bird of night did sit
Even at noon-day upon the marketplace,
Hooting and shrieking. When these prodigies
Do so conjointly meet, let not men say,
These are their reasons. They are natural.”
For I believe they are portentous things
Unto the climate that they point upon.”

~ Please watch this powerful speech by Rep. Barbara Jordan from the 1974 Impeachment Hearings about Nixon and think carefully about the health of our democracy and your place in this moment of history in 2019. ~ The Watergate charges pale in comparison to Trump’s charges and have “patience” because Trump’s Impeachment “will happen”. ~

“6 There is no merit in appellant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the court excluded evidence that in refusing to answer he acted in good faith on the advice of competent counsel.

The gist of the offense is refusal to answer pertinent questions. No moral turpitude is involved. Intentional violation is sufficient to constitute guilt.

There was no misapprehension as
to what was called for. The refusal to answer was deliberate.

The facts sought were pertinent as a matter of law, and § 102 made it appellant’s duty to answer. He was bound rightly to construe the statute. His mistaken view of the law is no defense. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 85. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v.
United States, 226 U.S. 20, 49.

7. The conviction on the first count must be affirmed. There were ten counts, demurrer was sustained as to four nolle prosequi was entered in respect of two, and conviction was had on the first, fourth, fifth and ninth counts. As the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized as punishment for the offense charged in the first count, we need not consider any other count. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 619.”
Judgment affirmed. *300”

Christine Blasey Ford bravely took questions from an outside lawyer because Republicans insisted on it.
But now the Attorney General of the United States is afraid of being questioned by staff lawyers about the Mueller report?

B.W., thank you so much for this. I have been thinking about Barbara Jordan for months now. To me, this is just as inspirational now as it was then. People were listening with rapt attention. Her speech is riveting!

Rayne, thanks so much for drawing the connection with Nixon! In fact, what may be Nixon’s most famous impeachable offense, the “Smoking Gun” tape of June 23, 1972, where he and H. R. Haldeman discussed how to get the CIA to direct the FBI to call off its Watergate investigation on supposed “national security” grounds, is a good sanity test today.

With the caution that I am not an attorney, I might offer this analysis of how the Giulana-Barr defense for Trump would have applied to Nixon’s smoking gun tape.

Argument 1. “No Prior Knowledge!” Since it was not established that Nixon had any prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in, there was no “underlying crime” of his own to obstruct! Therefore the smoking gun tape could not be impeachable.

Argument 2. “Unitary Executive.” In his discussion with Haldeman, Nixon did not propose destroying or manufacturing evidence; he was simply using his Article II powers to stop an investigation by his executive branch, which as Barr has shown us, cannot be obstruction.

Argument 3. “No Harm, No Obstruction!” Since in fact Richard Helms and Vernon Walters of the CIA refused to order the FBI to call off or limit its Watergate investigation — as various officials refused Trump’s orders or inducements to obstruct — there was really no obstruction, and thus no crime or impeachable offense.

In fact, of course, the release of Nixon’s smoking gun tape induced even the President’s staunchest defenders on the House Judiciary Committee, who had demanded “specificity” and “evidence,” to change their position and unite behind at least one article of impeachment. And this was the development that led the Republican leaders to visit the White House and let Nixon know that he would lose in a Senate trial, should he not resign, as he did within a few days. So the smoking gun tape may be a good sanity test to rebut the curious logic of Trump’s defenders.

Since I seem unable to use the Edit option, which gives me a screen with a single “0” character (and about the same when I try to view HTML source), I should clarify my reference to the “Giuliani-Barr” arguments.

OT, about census citizenship question that is in front of the supreme court.

One reason could be considered unconstitutional, IMO, is related to the green card holders.
They pay taxes, they have permission to work legally, are contributing members of society, just cannot vote.
With the new proposed census citizenship question they will be counted as non-citizens, I think.
If so, it kind of proves the census citizenship question is politically motivated.
And I assume the federal help is based on citizens in the state.

Historian Ron Chernow is a modest public speaker. He is more renowned as a court historian. In my view, his work is voluminous and popular, in the vein of David McCullough, but he is not much given to challenging received wisdom.

Chernow, however, did an adequate job in a difficult assignment for an often pearl clutching audience at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner: standing in for the president and the usual court jester-cum-visiting comedian. Doing double duty was necessary owing to Donald Trump’s refusal to attend and the WHCA’s reluctance to expose his onionskin ego – even in absentia – to a professional comedian’s wit.

Chernow’s best line was his last. He quoted Mark Twain, to the effect that politicians and diapers should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Congratulations to Nick Bosa on being picked number two in the NFL Draft. You will be a great player for years to come, maybe one of the best. Big Talent! San Francisco will embrace you but most importantly, always stay true to yourself. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

[…] Bosa, in a conference call with the Bay Area media, addressed the deleted tweets by saying,
“I was a little insensitive in some of the things I said. So, I’ve learned a lot in the past few months, and I’m just ready to move forward from that, put it in the past and bring the faithful some wins.”
That might be exactly the way it shakes out. Ideally, every team has room for players with vastly different views. Many fans prefer to ignore the “politics” and quirks of players and just enjoy the show.
It didn’t turn out that swell for Kaepernick, but maybe Bosa will be luckier.

Nick Bosa may have been the No. 2 pick in the NFL Draft, but the DE out of Ohio State was just made the top pick in the culture wars.
President Donald Trump, who in fairness was the No. 2 pick in the popular vote, tweeted his congratulations to Bosa on Saturday morning.[…]

BWAHAHAHAHA! The rest is good, too.

[…] The problem is that Bosa had already tip-toed back his support for the president. His first press conference as a 49er included an apology for calling Colin Kaepernick a “clown” among other tweets. He said the liberal Bay Area might just be the best thing for him.
“I think me being here is even better for me as a person,” Bosa said. “I don’t think there’s any city that you could be in that would help you grow as much as this one will.”
[…] Treating politics like a team sport, where team loyalty is prized above all else, has gotten Trump to the White House.
But what will a tweet like this mean for Bosa, a young player in a new market with a career ahead of him?
Fittingly, it will all play out in the same locker room where Kaepernick last hung up his jersey.

Barr threatens to snub the Judiciary committee. Nadler can run it the way he chooses.
Who the hell does Barr think he is Trump’s personal lawyer? Does he think he is entitled to something different? I was good enough for Comey.
Ugh!!! I need another glass of wine.

I know the answer. Starts with b.
+++
This is going to play well with Trump’s base, but again Trump’ base is a minority in this country.
Looks like Trump wants these fights to show he is doing something.
Infuriating…
It worked with Bret K. hearing, with 2016 campaign, with everything else.
Dems need to do something different, not sure what.
If they open impeachment hearings, I hope they are prepared to do the questioning.

+++

Some good news, it looks like Trump is loosing tweeter followers, because tweeter is flushing bots, so it kind of proves he is a fake.

It was nice to read what the articles of impeachment would be like, if only in our dreams. Gee I do wish they were real, LIKE if I woke up tomorrow morning and the CBC was saying this was happening. Oh, well its a nice thought to go to sleep on. Thank you.

Article One with the so-called Russian hack is nothing but a polished turd. I grew up in Nixon’s district and I did call for his Impeachment as a senior in High School and I am not willing to be snookered by anyone. You cannot use Nixon to beat up Nixon which is what this looks like towards Trump I have asked politely and have only been vilified for asking about the nature and VIP argument about a LEAK. They are experts in Intelligence and on Russia and none of you are. So get up out of your armchairs and give me a fair, reasoned, and rational explanation of why the VIP take should be rejected. That is all. You have essentially redacted before the redacted report came out. Believe me I WANT a solid Article One to stick it to this asshole for a President. Assange needs to be heard in this regard too. Now comes like I posted about FISA being declassified by Trump. To wit: “HANNITY: Mr. President, I’m going to — I have to ask you about the New Green Deal, Biden and the media. But one last, last question. Will you declassify the FISA applications, Gang of Eight material, those 302s, or, you know, what we call on this program the “bucket of five”? TRUMP: Yes. Everything is going to be declassified and more, much more than what you just mentioned. It will all be declassified. I’m glad I waited because I thought that maybe they would object struck if I did it early and I think I was right.”﻿ OK gentlemen?

Clever Evans but never was interested in the cracker jack box decoder stuff you play with. Almost as bad as Nixon calling up the night before the election and claiming Jerry Voorhis (my friend) is a communist. Wow impressed.

Yesterday, Jamie Dimon’s Chase Bank sent out a Tweet, mocking people for spending money on coffee and cabs, with a hashtag #MondayMotivation [Screenshot in the link below].
Among many mocking and pointed responses is Senator Elizabeth Warren‘s:https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1122954072867450880
1:01 PM – 29 Apr 2019

[email protected] to Jamie Dimon:
“I represent kids that go to jail for jumping a turnstile because they can’t afford a metro card. Do you think that more folks should have gone to jail for their role in a financial crisis that led to 7.8 million foreclosures?”

[email protected] outlined the budget of a single mother who works as a Chase bank teller, and asked JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon for solutions for the mother’s over-$500 shortfall.
Dimon did not have a response [VIDEO]

Sarah Sanders claims members of Congress are too dumb to review Trump’s tax returns
“Frankly, I don’t think Congress, particularly not this group of congressmen & women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages… my guess is most of them don’t do their own taxes” [VIDEO]